Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Two questions for Christians

Could god have changed his plan for our existence before setting it into motion without affecting our free will?

Answering no to either shows us that god is not all powerful. Answering yes to the first one shows us that he's not all powerful. Answering yes to the second one shows us that God must want certain people to exist to convince others of his nonexistence.

Obviously Christians believe some people go to Hell. Hell means an eternity of pain. God supposedly knows what we will do, and when we will do it. Before those people are even born, God knows that they will burn in Hell for eternity.

So, why does God create some people just to torture them forever?

Wilson: "We were afraid that if you found out you solved a case with absolutely no medical evidence you'd think you were God." House: "God doesn't limp."

Could god have changed his plan for our existence before setting it into motion without affecting our free will?

Answering no to either shows us that god is not all powerful. Answering yes to the first one shows us that he's not all powerful. Answering yes to the second one shows us that God must want certain people to exist to convince others of his nonexistence.

To the first one, the answer is "yes and no". It's no because, since God's powers are infinite, a rock cannot be so big that He can't lift it. It's yes because God, being all-powerful, would have the power to place limits upon Himself if He so chooses, so He could make Himself unable to lift the rock if He wanted.

To the second one, yes, but only if the changed plan also allowed for our having free will. If He changed the plan to such an extent that the only things which happened in our universe are the exact things that are within God's will, then, at that point, He is removing our free will. I'd also add that making it so that only a very few things happened which were outside of His will, means placing a very severe, though not absolute, limit upon our free will. As long as people are given the option of acting outside of His will, then free will has not been removed. And the extend to which we are able to act outside of His will is the extent to which we have free will.

Obviously Christians believe some people go to Hell. Hell means an eternity of pain. God supposedly knows what we will do, and when we will do it. Before those people are even born, God knows that they will burn in Hell for eternity.

So, why does God create some people just to torture them forever?

Personally, I don't believe that hell is a place of physical torture, but a state of shame.

Obviously Christians believe some people go to Hell. Hell means an eternity of pain. God supposedly knows what we will do, and when we will do it. Before those people are even born, God knows that they will burn in Hell for eternity.

So, why does God create some people just to torture them forever?

Personally, I don't believe that hell is a place of physical torture, but a state of shame.

This is only answerable by first defining God to be alogical, completely absurd and thus not understandable by humans. This is of course biting a bullet among the Theist community, they believe that we can still have rational discourse about God. The fact is the omnipotence paradox prevents an omnipotent being from existing within logical barriers.

Honestly, this would make him unable to interact with the logical world, or create anything with order. But it's impossible to tell.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Personally, I don't believe that hell is a place of physical torture, but a state of shame.

David

good... now this state of shame.

Is it the same shame your going to feel when you die, and realize there is no heaven.

or wait. Its impossible to feel anything when your dead.

God is the omnimax creator by definition of major religions. If there is evidence that the religion is incorrect about the nature of reality, then there is evidence that the God the religion defines does not exist.

To the first one, the answer is "yes and no". It's no because, since God's powers are infinite, a rock cannot be so big that He can't lift it. It's yes because God, being all-powerful, would have the power to place limits upon Himself if He so chooses, so He could make Himself unable to lift the rock if He wanted.

"Yes and no" isn't an answer. If I said "yes and no" to a judge asking me if I shot someone they'd shred me. Nothing can be "yes and no" and "maybe" leaves the topic open to atheist-attack (which "yes and no" also does). And saying that God can be "yes and no" because he defies logic is either (a) An illogical statement to fill holes in the Biblical "truths" or (b) See (a). If God is so illogical then believing in him would constitute irrationality, no?

Quote:

Main Entry: ir?ra?tio?nal
Pronunciation: ir-'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not rational: as a : not governed by reason, mental clarity, or understanding b : not governed by a fair consideration of facts or evidence;

Keep in mind that I'm not bashing you, I'm bashing your argument. So don't take it as a personal attack. But it's a silly answer.

Obviously Christians believe some people go to Hell. Hell means an eternity of pain. God supposedly knows what we will do, and when we will do it. Before those people are even born, God knows that they will burn in Hell for eternity.

So, why does God create some people just to torture them forever?

Personally, I don't believe that hell is a place of physical torture, but a state of shame.

David

Ummmm
:/
you didn't answer the question....

Since the question assumes things that I don't believe, I can't answer it. If you'd like to rephrase it taking out the part about God torturing people forever or anything else I don't believe, then I'll answer.

To the first one, the answer is "yes and no". It's no because, since God's powers are infinite, a rock cannot be so big that He can't lift it. It's yes because God, being all-powerful, would have the power to place limits upon Himself if He so chooses, so He could make Himself unable to lift the rock if He wanted.

"Yes and no" isn't an answer. If I said "yes and no" to a judge asking me if I shot someone they'd shred me.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

Or let's say you went way down south to a country where people have never seen ice, but have only seen water in its liquid state. If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?", would the answer be yes or no? If you say yes, then this person is going to think that ice is a liquid like the one he's familiar with. If you answer "no", then you're lying, because both are H20.

Quote:

Nothing can be "yes and no" and "maybe" leaves the topic open to atheist-attack (which "yes and no" also does). And saying that God can be "yes and no" because he defies logic is either (a) An illogical statement to fill holes in the Biblical "truths" or (b) See (a). If God is so illogical then believing in him would constitute irrationality, no?

No, because some questions need further response than a simple "yes" or "no" would give. Some answers are dependent upon clarification.

Quote:

Quote:

Main Entry: ir?ra?tio?nal
Pronunciation: ir-'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not rational: as a : not governed by reason, mental clarity, or understanding b : not governed by a fair consideration of facts or evidence;

Keep in mind that I'm not bashing you, I'm bashing your argument. So don't take it as a personal attack. But it's a silly answer.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes.

Quote:

If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?"

The answer would be yes, it's water in a solid form because it's so cold.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes.

Quote:

If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?"

The answer would be yes, it's water in a solid form because it's so cold.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes.

Quote:

If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?"

The answer would be yes, it's water in a solid form because it's so cold.

How about you? Are you the same person you were a year ago?

David

Yes.

I think you are trying to combine multiple questions to try and make your invalid point. Like you want to assume because I know more today or I've learned more, that I'm a different person. I'm not. Do I know more today? Yes. Do I act exactly the same I did a year ago? No.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes.

Quote:

If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?"

The answer would be yes, it's water in a solid form because it's so cold.

How about you? Are you the same person you were a year ago?

David

Yes.

I think you are trying to combine multiple questions to try and make your invalid point. Like you want to assume because I know more today or I've learned more, that I'm a different person. I'm not. Do I know more today? Yes. Do I act exactly the same I did a year ago? No.

All yes or no questions, making your point invalid.

That's the point I was trying to make, that a single question can be multi-faceted. If the judge asks "did you shoot him", then an answer of "yes, I shot him with a paintbull gun" or "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" would both be rational responses. If I ask someone "is ice water", then an answer of "yes, they contain the same chemical components" and "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" are both rational responses. If I ask someone "are you the same person you were a year ago?", then an answer of "yes, I have the same basic identity" and "no, I've changed in some ways" are both rational responses.

None of the above responses would be irrational to most rational people, and a "yes and no" response also reflects this.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes.

Quote:

If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?"

The answer would be yes, it's water in a solid form because it's so cold.

How about you? Are you the same person you were a year ago?

David

Yes.

I think you are trying to combine multiple questions to try and make your invalid point. Like you want to assume because I know more today or I've learned more, that I'm a different person. I'm not. Do I know more today? Yes. Do I act exactly the same I did a year ago? No.

All yes or no questions, making your point invalid.

That's the point I was trying to make, that a single question can be multi-faceted.

You do this often. You start off with a statement like "I agree" or "That's the point I was trying to make" even though we disagree and your point is the opposite of my point. It's that type of dishonesty I'm referring to. The questions aren't multi-faceted you're confusing them with being multi faceted, they are single faceted.

If the judge asks "did you shoot him", then an answer of "yes, I shot him with a paintbull gun" or "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" would both be rational responses. If I ask someone "is ice water", then an answer of "yes, they contain the same chemical components" and "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" are both rational responses.

You have just proved your irrationality in a marvelous manner

if you shoot someone with a paintball gun and the judge asks you "did you shoot him?" you CAN NOT say "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" because you still shot him!!! your reasoning is irrational.

"Is ice water?" ... yes! it is the exact same thing. Your second answer, "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" IS IRRATIONAL because Ice is water. Always.

You lack the ability to think rationally- It is obviously the reason why you are still a theist.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes.

Quote:

If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?"

The answer would be yes, it's water in a solid form because it's so cold.

How about you? Are you the same person you were a year ago?

David

Yes.

I think you are trying to combine multiple questions to try and make your invalid point. Like you want to assume because I know more today or I've learned more, that I'm a different person. I'm not. Do I know more today? Yes. Do I act exactly the same I did a year ago? No.

All yes or no questions, making your point invalid.

That's the point I was trying to make, that a single question can be multi-faceted.

You do this often. You start off with a statement like "I agree" or "That's the point I was trying to make" even though we disagree and your point is the opposite of my point. It's that type of dishonesty I'm referring to. The questions aren't multi-faceted you're confusing them with being multi faceted, they are single faceted.

Are you kidding? The question of "are you the same person you were a year ago?" is definitely multi-faceted, since we are all the same person in some ways, and a different person in others. Since neither answer would be dishonest, you can hardly say it's single-faceted.

If the judge asks "did you shoot him", then an answer of "yes, I shot him with a paintbull gun" or "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" would both be rational responses. If I ask someone "is ice water", then an answer of "yes, they contain the same chemical components" and "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" are both rational responses.

if you shoot someone with a paintball gun and the judge asks you "did you shoot him?" you CAN NOT say "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" because you still shot him!!! your reasoning is irrational.

"Is ice water?" ... yes! it is the exact same thing. Your second answer, "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" IS IRRATIONAL because Ice is water. Always.

He's not being literal. He IS the same person. However he doesn't have the same knowledge, the same experience. We take certain liberties in common conversation that don't translate into a literal and rational way of communication because we take for granted that other people will know what we're referring to. We all know what the soldier means, and his intent, however HE IS STILL THE SAME PERSON.

Here is how the conversation would look in yes or no question land:

Q. Are you the same person you were when you left?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you have more experiences and knowledge now?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a different view on life?
A. Yes.

Q. Has witnessing mass killing changed your mindset?
A. Yes

on and on and on...

However is he the same person as before, it's a resounding and extremely obvious, YES. However in common communication he takes for granted that people will know what he means when he says "he's not the same person as before." You of all people should understand metaphor, it's a metaphor, it's not literal... of course (literally speaking) he's the same person... DUH!

If the judge asks "did you shoot him", then an answer of "yes, I shot him with a paintbull gun" or "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" would both be rational responses. If I ask someone "is ice water", then an answer of "yes, they contain the same chemical components" and "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" are both rational responses.

if you shoot someone with a paintball gun and the judge asks you "did you shoot him?" you CAN NOT say "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" because you still shot him!!! your reasoning is irrational.

"Is ice water?" ... yes! it is the exact same thing. Your second answer, "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" IS IRRATIONAL because Ice is water. Always.

Hey David so am i right or what?

Since you're not likely to get an honest answer from him, I'll answer one his behalf... yes you're right.

I'm saying that I'm not the same person I was a year ago. Am I wrong?
David

Yes. Reread all my posts to try and get what I'm saying.

this guy can read those posts a million times and i don't think it will do him any good.

kingdavid, good luck with never having a clue for the rest of your life.

God is the omnimax creator by definition of major religions. If there is evidence that the religion is incorrect about the nature of reality, then there is evidence that the God the religion defines does not exist.

I'll just provide three responses on what seems to be a matter centered on the notion of God's actualizing impossible states of affairs.

First, Christian theologians have never historically interpreted God's omnipotence to mean that God could do the logically contradictory. The only philosopher that I know of to take such a view any seriously was Rene Descartes who seemed to think that God just invented the laws of logic, morality, and mathematics. From the time of Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, and all of the great church fathers, it becomes increasingly apparent Christian theologians have never thought omnipotence to mean the ability to do the logically impossible.

Secondly, it seems the logically impossible isn't really a thing, as such. As an example, to say that God cannot create a round square isn't to say "There's some thing that God cannot create," because there just isn?t any such a thing as a round square... it's merely self-contradictory combination of words. So it's not any kind of infringement upon God's power to say that he can't do the logically impossible because the logically impossible is simply nothing.

Finally, lets suppose that God could do the logically impossible; If you begin to postulate that, then it seems there's no longer any problem at all with God's attributes. If God can bring about the logically impossible, then it seems nothing can be a problem any longer for Christian theism.

He's not being literal. He IS the same person. However he doesn't have the same knowledge, the same experience. We take certain liberties in common conversation that don't translate into a literal and rational way of communication because we take for granted that other people will know what we're referring to. We all know what the soldier means, and his intent, however HE IS STILL THE SAME PERSON.

Here is how the conversation would look in yes or no question land:

Q. Are you the same person you were when you left?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you have more experiences and knowledge now?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a different view on life?
A. Yes.

Q. Has witnessing mass killing changed your mindset?
A. Yes

on and on and on...

However is he the same person as before, it's a resounding and extremely obvious, YES. However in common communication he takes for granted that people will know what he means when he says "he's not the same person as before." You of all people should understand metaphor, it's a metaphor, it's not literal... of course (literally speaking) he's the same person... DUH!

So all you've shown is that when he says "I'm not the same person", he's not being literal. I agree. But that doesn't mean that he's irrational or lying. What he said is true, honest and rational, just not literal.

If you want to take the question a certain way, that's fine. I won't fault you for it. But the fact that others take it a different way doesn't mean that you're right and they're wrong. A single question CAN be interpreted different ways by different people, and many people will answer a given question with a "yes and no", or at least not consider someone else's "yes and no" answer to be irrational. You may not like it, and it may not fit with the way you think things should be, but that doesn't make it irrational.

If the judge asks "did you shoot him", then an answer of "yes, I shot him with a paintbull gun" or "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" would both be rational responses. If I ask someone "is ice water", then an answer of "yes, they contain the same chemical components" and "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" are both rational responses.

if you shoot someone with a paintball gun and the judge asks you "did you shoot him?" you CAN NOT say "no, I did not shoot him with a handgun and kill him" because you still shot him!!! your reasoning is irrational.

"Is ice water?" ... yes! it is the exact same thing. Your second answer, "no, one is specifically a solid, while the other is frequently a liquid" IS IRRATIONAL because Ice is water. Always.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes. However, what you're making here is a clause ommission fallacy (which really drives me mad sometimes). I doubt that any judge will ask you "did you shoot the poor basterd?" instead of "did you shoot that poor bastard with that gun over there?". If I ask you "Heve you stolen?" and you say "Yes", because once, when you were young, you stole Shelly's cotton candy, then me being a judge can convict you for the million dollar theft that has just occurred at some bank.

It depends on the angle: if you look at a window from far away, you can say it's surface is quite flat and shiny. But if you look at it microscopically, you discover that's far from being true.

KingDavid8 wrote:

Or let's say you went way down south to a country where people have never seen ice, but have only seen water in its liquid state. If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?", would the answer be yes or no? If you say yes, then this person is going to think that ice is a liquid like the one he's familiar with. If you answer "no", then you're lying, because both are H20.

Again, you are ommitting a clause. I can perfectly prove to that man that ice is water in a simple manner: I bring on a freezer and cool down the water until it gets solid. That way I even teach him more: what ice is and also how to produce it.

These two were invalid "yes/no" questions, as there is more than a binary possibility. Keep that in mind, otherwise you can draw non-sequiturs like "Because this ball is red, all cats have whiskers".

KingDavid8 wrote:

Quote:

Nothing can be "yes and no" and "maybe" leaves the topic open to atheist-attack (which "yes and no" also does). And saying that God can be "yes and no" because he defies logic is either (a) An illogical statement to fill holes in the Biblical "truths" or (b) See (a). If God is so illogical then believing in him would constitute irrationality, no?

No, because some questions need further response than a simple "yes" or "no" would give. Some answers are dependent upon clarification.

Quote:

Quote:

Main Entry: ir?ra?tio?nal
Pronunciation: ir-'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not rational: as a : not governed by reason, mental clarity, or understanding b : not governed by a fair consideration of facts or evidence;

Keep in mind that I'm not bashing you, I'm bashing your argument. So don't take it as a personal attack. But it's a silly answer.

-=Grim=-

Are you the same person you were a year ago? Yes or no?

David

Define "same person". If by same person you mean exact same knowledge, experience, number of cells, position of cells, etc., then no. If you define same person as looking, living and thinking in maybe a 20-25% acceptable margin of how I was thinking back a year ago, then yes.

Let's say that this person had been shot to death with a handgun, and the week before he died, you and he were playing paintball, and you shot him with a paintball gun. If the judge asked you "Did you shoot this person?", would the answer be yes or no?

The answer would be yes. However, what you're making here is a clause ommission fallacy (which really drives me mad sometimes). I doubt that any judge will ask you "did you shoot the poor basterd?" instead of "did you shoot that poor bastard with that gun over there?".

Probably not. But the example GrimJesta gave was asking simply if I shot him, without elaboration. If I answered "no" simply due to the fact that I didn't shoot him with a handgun and kill him, and then the prosecution pointed out that I'd shot him with a paintball gun the week before, no one would accuse me of perjury or dishonesty.

Quote:

It depends on the angle: if you look at a window from far away, you can say it's surface is quite flat and shiny. But if you look at it microscopically, you discover that's far from being true.

I know people hate when I say this, but I agree with you. The answer to a given question can be one of perspective. If someone asked you if the surface of the window was flat and shiny, a "yes" and "no" would both be correct, depending on how you're viewing the window, and an answer of "yes and no" would simply be an acknowledgement of the multiple perspectives.

Quote:

KingDavid8 wrote:

Or let's say you went way down south to a country where people have never seen ice, but have only seen water in its liquid state. If you tried describing what ice was, and the person, misunderstanding, asked you "is ice water?", would the answer be yes or no? If you say yes, then this person is going to think that ice is a liquid like the one he's familiar with. If you answer "no", then you're lying, because both are H20.

Again, you are ommitting a clause. I can perfectly prove to that man that ice is water in a simple manner: I bring on a freezer and cool down the water until it gets solid. That way I even teach him more: what ice is and also how to produce it.

And again, since "water" can be a liquid, solid or gas, but "ice" can only be a solid, then we can't say that water and ice are the same thing in every sense. Chemically speaking, yes, it is. But as far as how many possible states it can be in, no, it's not. Ice is always a solid. Water is not.

Quote:

Quote:

Are you the same person you were a year ago? Yes or no?

Define "same person". If by same person you mean exact same knowledge, experience, number of cells, position of cells, etc., then no. If you define same person as looking, living and thinking in maybe a 20-25% acceptable margin of how I was thinking back a year ago, then yes.

That's the problem - what if the question isn't defined? If I'm asking the individual to just answer the question as it stands, without elaborating, then "yes", "no" and "yes and no" will all be valid answers, and most people would not consider "yes and no" to be an irrational answer to that question.

And most people would disagree with you on that. Yesterday I went to another site's forum (www.Snopes.com) and made a poll asking that exact question, "Are you the same person you were a year ago?" (giving three options for answer - "Yes", "No", or "Yes And No&quot, without elaborating on what I meant or why I was asking it. Of the 126 people who answered, 13% said "Yes", 37% said "No" and 50% answered "Yes And No", so the answer you give is the least common response. If you want to see the thread, it's at http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/53/t/003914.html (but due to a quirk of the site, you must answer the question in order to view the results, and answering means being a member. But signing up is free and it's as simple as joining this forum.).
And by the way, I did also ask people in the same poll if they would consider a "Yes and No" answer to the question to be irrational, and 87% said "No", 13% said "Yes". The results could change, of course, since more people could still answer, but that's the results so far.

Quote:

My questions were very defined, and this argumentation you have been making is a dishonest one to weasel out of answering the actual question.

Not defined enough, though. If you want to limit me to a simple "yes" or "no" (on the "rock" question), then you need to clarify whether or not we're talking about God as He is now, or God as He could make Himself. If we're talking about God "as is", then the answer is no. But if we're assuming that God could purposely limit His powers (which would make Him something other than He currently is), then the answer is yes.

You say that "answering yes or no shows us that god is not all powerful". But you haven't demonstrated that at all.

"An all-powerful being can do X. God can't do X, therefore he is not an all-powerful being". I think that is reasonable.

For you to show that God ISN'T all-powerful, you would need to show us what the answer is in the above "Rock" question for an all-powerful being. If that differs from the answer given if using God, then you've proven your case. But if it is the same answer, then you can't conclude that God is all-powerful.

SO, if we use "all powerful being" instead of "God" in the example, does the answer change?

Sapient wrote:

Could god have changed his plan for our existence before setting it into motion without affecting our free will?

You wrote, "Answering no shows us that god is not all powerful. Answering yes shows us that God must want certain people to exist to convince others of his nonexistence.

I don't understand the logic behind your "yes" answer. If it doesn't affect our free-will, then why does it show that God must want certain people to exist to convince others of his nonexistence?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown

And most people would disagree with you on that. Yesterday I went to another site's forum (www.Snopes.com) and made a poll asking that exact question, "Are you the same person you were a year ago?" (giving three options for answer - "Yes", "No", or "Yes And No&quot, without elaborating on what I meant or why I was asking it. Of the 126 people who answered, 13% said "Yes", 37% said "No" and 50% answered "Yes And No", so the answer you give is the least common response. If you want to see the thread, it's at http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/53/t/003914.html

Notice responses like:

What do you mean? Biologically? Emotionally? Spiritually? Holistically? Life experience? How we define ourselves basically?

Those are indicative of someone being able to answer yes or no to each individual question. Your poll didn't teach us anything we didn't already know. As I told you already some people read into questions with a certain liberty, in common conversation. Ironically many people felt you meant emotionally and intellectually and in that sense all answered no (ALSO A SINGLE ANSWER). However if you meant, are you literally the same human person you were before, everyone would've answered yes. Nobody assumed you meant it in that way, as the answer to the question is so obvious that nobody would've ever guessed that you would be asking it. Could you imagine saying "Were you John Smith the human last year, and are you still him today?"

Quote:

we're talking about God as He is now, or God as He could make Himself.

We're talking about God as he could make himself. All powerful, no restrictions.

And most people would disagree with you on that. Yesterday I went to another site's forum (www.Snopes.com) and made a poll asking that exact question, "Are you the same person you were a year ago?" (giving three options for answer - "Yes", "No", or "Yes And No&quot, without elaborating on what I meant or why I was asking it. Of the 126 people who answered, 13% said "Yes", 37% said "No" and 50% answered "Yes And No", so the answer you give is the least common response. If you want to see the thread, it's at http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/53/t/003914.html

Notice responses like:

What do you mean? Biologically? Emotionally? Spiritually? Holistically? Life experience? How we define ourselves basically?

Those are indicative of someone being able to answer yes or no to each individual question. Your poll didn't teach us anything we didn't already know. As I told you already some people read into questions with a certain liberty, in common conversation. Ironically many people felt you meant emotionally and intellectually and in that sense all answered no (ALSO A SINGLE ANSWER). However if you meant, are you literally the same human person you were before, everyone would've answered yes. Nobody assumed you meant it in that way, as the answer to the question is so obvious that nobody would've ever guessed that you would be asking it. Could you imagine saying "Were you John Smith the human last year, and are you still him today?"

I didn't mean "literally the same person", but neither did I stop anyone from taking it that way if they chose to. I simply asked the question and had people answer it as they will, without my elaborating. The question "Are you the same person you were a year ago" can be answered with a yes, a no, or (as about half the people did) a "yes and no".

Quote:

Quote:

we're talking about God as He is now, or God as He could make Himself.

We're talking about God as he could make himself. All powerful, no restrictions.

Assuming that by "no restrictions", you mean that God isn't restricted on limiting Himself (as opposed to God not being able to give Himself restrictions), then the answer is Yes.

But if you did mean that God is not able to give Himself restrictions, then the answer is No.

And again, since "water" can be a liquid, solid or gas, but "ice" can only be a solid, then we can't say that water and ice are the same thing in every sense. Chemically speaking, yes, it is. But as far as how many possible states it can be in, no, it's not. Ice is always a solid. Water is not.

Ice IS water. Always.
If i ask you, 'is ice water?' and you say'no' Then you are Irrational.
You can answer: 'yes, but it is water in a solid state' but the answer is still yes.

I am astounded that you do not agree. Your willingness to lie to prove your own point is horrifying. Or are you really dumb enough to actually believe your argument?

And again, since "water" can be a liquid, solid or gas, but "ice" can only be a solid, then we can't say that water and ice are the same thing in every sense. Chemically speaking, yes, it is. But as far as how many possible states it can be in, no, it's not. Ice is always a solid. Water is not.

Ice IS water. Always.

The problem is that you're interpreting the question "Is ice water?" a certain way, but it's not the only way it can be interpreted.
You're interpreting it to mean "Is ice comprised of water?" - in which case the answer could only be "yes".
But as I've been trying to explain, the question could also be interpreted as "Are ice and water always the same thing?" In which case, the answer could only be "no".

Quote:

If i ask you, 'is ice water?' and you say'no' Then you are Irrational.

Not if I interpret the question as to be asking whether ice and water are always the same thing.

Quote:

You can answer: 'yes, but it is water in a solid state' but the answer is still yes.

I agree that an answer of "yes" would not be irrational or dishonest, but I'm saying an answer of "no" isn't irrational or dishonest, if the person hearing the question interprets it to mean "are ice and water always the same thing?"

Quote:

I am astounded that you do not agree. Your willingness to lie to prove your own point is horrifying. Or are you really dumb enough to actually believe your argument?

So which one is it? are you being irrational or dishonest?

Neither. I'm just acknowledging that the question can be interpreted more than one way, which it can. You're not acknowledging this.

Neither. I'm just acknowledging that the question can be interpreted more than one way, which it can. You're not acknowledging this.

David, did you ever go to school?
Ice is not comprised of water, ICE IS WATER, only at a lower temperature.
the question is straightforward and not open to interpretation.

I am NOT interpreting the question as: 'is ice comprised of water?'
I am interpreting the question as: 'IS ICE WATER?' and the only rational answer is an unconditional 'YES'. 'No' is an Irrational answer.

"Are ice and water always the same thing?"
Is not the same as the original question. It is an Irrational interpretation of the original question.
The question is NOT :'Do Ice and water always have the exact same physical structure?'